And that is up to the individual to decide if it is worth the effort to produce more if a percentage if it will be taken away so what you think is fair at 40% another will feel that it is unfair so it cant be measured

You think Bill Gates is going to say, oh lets not persue this development because the government is going to take 40%?

Circumstances of birth and luck shouldn't dictate one's ability to earn a living. No one is suggesting that people be paid $100/hr for sweeping with a broom, but people who work full time shouldn't be below the poverty line, or even close to it.

Minimum wage was NEVER ment for a family of 4. Its a starting wage. If you can't earn more than minimum wage by the time you are 20 there is something wrong with you. There are costs to raising it to $9. Basic emplyement cost will go way up. SS, Workmans Comp, Insurance, all are tied to wage. Then there is the point that if Min Wage was too low, no one would take it, thus causing the rate to go up without the govt getting involved.

Money itself isn't even a thing; it's a representation of a thing. Holding on to it stifles the economy. It isn't "used up", when you buy something, the person you bought it from can then use that money to buy something else. The faster and more often it's exchanged, the more wealth exists, even when the money supply doesn't change.

I think this is the highlight of how US can be the wealthiest nation in the world, yet have not only poverty but over all economic uncertainty. The wealth is held by very few people, isn't being spent to boost the economy. It's the spending of the large majority that drives the economy, not people accumulating as much as they can. If folks instead got paid more for their 9-5, they would buy more stuff.

The rich do -not- invest their money in business, or rather they do so rarely; most of the time, they are as I said spending it on luxury products, speculating on derivatives (basically economic masturbation) or putting it in offshore accounts to dodge taxes.

wrong the rich became rich by investing in high risk ventures the ones who made millions off of apple all the ones who invested in apple when they first started out when they where a risk investment
The millionaire that you liked to bash the most Romney made his millions off high risk ventures it is what Bain capitol did

And that is up to the individual to decide if it is worth the effort to produce more if a percentage if it will be taken away so what you think is fair at 40% another will feel that it is unfair so it cant be measured
lets look at France the raised their top end rate to 75% and millionaires left France by the boat full then we have California that raised its rate and combined with federal and local tax the high end is paying over 50% and they are leaving in droves also
So you need to find the happy medium well it is worth the risk because no matter how little you raise it some will leave but question is how many and are you actually decreasing your tax base there for you are actually taking in less tax money then you did before you raised the rate

You're moving goalposts as usual. We were talking about whether or not higher tax rates stop people from trying to make more money, and you're mixing that in with jurisdictions poaching business in a race to the bottom. Obviously at some point they do stop working if taxes are too high. You could probably graph it as a curve to show that the closer to zero net benefit yuou reach, the less a person will be willing to try to make an additional dollar.

But even if you did find such a level...so what? I mean, what if over $50M we put marginal tax rates at 90% and a CEO at a bank no longer find it worthwhile to make more than that. What is the result? He'll either cap his compensation at around $50M or else he'll try to weasel the board to pay him grotesque amounts to make up the difference, but there is only so much he can squeeze them for so it may not be worthwhile. Is he going to not try to maximize bank profits because he thinks he is worth $100M and $50M is not worth his time? No--he still wants that $50M and if his bank doesn't perform well he'll get replaced or a competitor will outstrip them.

What about the guy who owns his own company? Will he not be willing to grow his business because his taxes make it impractical to earn more? Only if he is a fool. If he's making so much that he's getting maxed up then he can simply stop paying himself and investing to make his company grow to help ensure that he can STAY on top by crowding out competition. He could also use some of the extra profits to pay his workers better because he's an actual human being with some care and compassion. But he might decide to simply work less. Fine. That opens the door for someone else to come in and pick up that slack. Nothing is lost, and in fact you may have some net gain.

My parents are in their 70's. They are still working, and since it is a medical practice they earn money really based on how much they work, and not just some arbitrary salary level. They make a fair amount of money and pay high tax rates. So why do they keep doing it? Because 40 cents on the dollar is better than 0 cents, and they see a benefit to continue to work even at such tax rates.

And that is up to the individual to decide if it is worth the effort to produce more if a percentage if it will be taken away so what you think is fair at 40% another will feel that it is unfair so it cant be measured

Which is literally no different than the same argument applied to any other tax rate. You're not making an argument, here.

lets look at France the raised their top end rate to 75% and millionaires left France by the boat full then we have California that raised its rate and combined with federal and local tax the high end is paying over 50% and they are leaving in droves also

In most cases, if you leave the country/state, you still pay income tax that you earn in said country/state. If you run a film studio in Hollywood, you can't move your house to Kansas and pay less income tax on the studio's earnings.

You're talking about the dangers of going past the midpoint of the Laffer Curve and going too far to the right, where increased taxes lead to lower production and revenue. Pretty much every economist in the business agrees that the US is pretty well to the left on the Laffer Curve, which makes your protests on that matter baseless.

Minimum wage was NEVER ment for a family of 4. Its a starting wage. If you can't earn more than minimum wage by the time you are 20 there is something wrong with you. There are costs to raising it to $9. Basic emplyement cost will go way up. SS, Workmans Comp, Insurance, all are tied to wage. Then there is the point that if Min Wage was too low, no one would take it, thus causing the rate to go up without the govt getting involved.

Sadly, there are plenty of people living off minimum wage who will never be able to earn more. Not everyone can afford to go to college, or has the ability to learn specialized training. Is the response to these people “better luck next time” ? I certainly don’t like that. I’d prefer people who have higher education and special skills enjoy more luxuries instead of them becoming the new “living wage” segment while the working poor continue to lavish in squalor. That’s just me.

wrong the rich became rich by investing in high risk ventures the ones who made millions off of apple all the ones who invested in apple when they first started out when they where a risk investment
The millionaire that you liked to bash the most Romney made his millions off high risk ventures it is what Bain capitol did

Exactly; and this recession is the result of their 'high risk' ventures. You're confusing a sunrise industry like Microsoft and Apple with what the majority of the 'rich' do; which is speculate on derivatives, real-estate, etc.

The millionaire "I" like to bash, huh? Show me a post where I've bashed Romney for his money.

---------- Post added 2013-02-13 at 10:38 AM ----------

Originally Posted by ScottsdaleHokie

No they wouldn't thanks to the price increases on everything to compensate for having to paying them more.

That's a myth; the only reason that companies increase their prices is as a political gesture (like Papa John's, who I am now boycotting).

You think Bill Gates is going to say, oh lets not persue this development because the government is going to take 40%?

maybe not maybe so just like would he have had access to the capitol to start and expand Microsoft if the capital to do so wasn't there because no one wanted to make that risk because taxes on that investment was to high for them to justify the risk

maybe not maybe so just like would he have had access to the capitol to start and expand Microsoft if the capital to do so wasn't there because no one wanted to make that risk because taxes on that investment was to high for them to justify the risk

You seem not to grasp the concept of progressive taxation...or having tax write-offs for seed capital and other junk like that.

The millionaire that you liked to bash the most Romney made his millions off high risk ventures it is what Bain capitol did

Bain Capital wasn't a high-risk angel investor. They're a vulture capitalist corporation. They swoop in, sell off what they can for a profit, run the corpse into the ground, take massive salaries, and then move on, leaving the shattered and defunct corpse in their wake.

Bain Capital makes money whether the companies they take on become successful, or don't. It's not a risk venture. If they can't turn a profit by improving the company's performance, they'll sell it off piecemeal, since the company becoming long-term profitable isn't a consideration.

Originally Posted by ScottsdaleHokie

No they wouldn't thanks to the price increases on everything to compensate for having to paying them more.

There's no necessary price increase. That's malarkey. The cost to the company isn't being changed, it's just being shifted so that the employees make more and the CEO and shareholders make less.

No they wouldn't thanks to the price increases on everything to compensate for having to paying them more.

If more people are buying your crap, you are still making more money despite paying people more. The only reason to increase prices if the increased cost of employees is covered by increased sales, is greed.

maybe not maybe so just like would he have had access to the capitol to start and expand Microsoft if the capital to do so wasn't there because no one wanted to make that risk because taxes on that investment was to high for them to justify the risk

Why not listen to people who are actually involved with businesses and in particular start-ups? For example, Mark Cuban. Especially starting at the 50 second mark.

You think people would starve to death instead of taking an extremely low min wage?

If I needed employees to run my business, and NO ONE applyed for my jobs at minimum wage, I would HAVE to raise my wages in order to get the employee. You have a one sided view point. Not all hourly wages are minimum. I Would not pay a 17yr old $12/hour to sweep. Again, if a gown person can only get minimum wage jobs, there is something lacking in that person. Personally I know of no one, but mid teenagers, who make minimum wage. You get paid above Min wage at McDonalds! The market is working with no need for more regulations.